What Should Disqualify a Candidate

Granted, there is a remaining bit of Neanderthal to my thinking but really, shouldn’t an investigation conclude before one throws his or her hat into our Presidential sweepstakes? There was a time when stiffer qualifications had to be met. Certainly, an investigation of prior federal employee conduct should matter and take precedence.

Reading an AP account pertaining to Clinton’s release of emails to the Justice Department, this article presented a sense of normalcy. This “matter-of-fact prose seemed to accept “the investigation into the Democratic presidential frontrunner’s use of a private email account.” It appeared as though it was just a ho-hum deal of a continuing nuisance. This is not what it should be.

Given the activities surrounding both Clintons, these current “improprieties” are but only the latest regarding the former first lady. Her novice ability to turn a one thousand dollar investment into a one hundred thousand dollar windfall, seemingly overnight, was publicly accepted yet continues to conjure up laughter or disgust.

Even a matter of life and death failed to incite any media inquiry. The suicide and follow-up investigation of confident Vince Foster remains as a monumental embarrassment, given the overlooked and/or ignored evidence along with the surrounding circumstances.

From a Secret service perspective, being assigned the detail of guarding and protecting the former first lady was generally viewed as a punitive assignment.

And then there’s her Senate record. Enough said. There’s nothing much to add on this score. Something akin to Obama’s lack luster performance.

Do we need to reiterate her Benghazi “what difference” remark? Dare we combine the responsibility of her State Secretary position, her inaction on the night in question with her disgraceful performance at Dover AFB. Is this the making of a Commander in Chief?

Point being, our Presidency has been downgraded over time. The multitude of candidates, many of whom lack sufficient credentials, reflects upon this current low point of Presidential integrity. Such judgments ominously kick off when a draft dodger becomes our military’s Commander in Chief. Harsh words but never-the-less, true.

Given that this disloyal approval tarnished everyone who ever wore our Nation’s uniform, the Presidential floodgates opened with the thought that if a draft dodger could be elected then, why not now a forgotten New York or Virginia governor? Again, their entries validate this free for all mentality.

Really, this circus should never have set up its tent. America deserves respect, especially so from those who serve her. Not only is this republican parade disrespectful, it also contains elements of illegal entry.

Although I personally like Sen. Cruz, Gov. Jindal and I voted for Sen. Rubio, there is an appropriate concern surrounding their legitimacy. While we have become inundated with Constitutional revisionisms, let it be said that the strictest of standards provides America with her best protections. To dilute America’s original message is an outright attempt at usurping the process.

Consider that at the time of the Constitutional Convention, Emer Vattel’s Law of Nations was a common read for those in attendance. This fact is critical for realizing the importance and purpose when including “natural born citizen” to our Constitution. It was then, with their daily usage and understandings from that period which evoked their writings and this term. And it is from that period for which their words and definitions remain effective and appropriate.

Today, as revisionist after revisionist attempt to re-edit or redefine, the meanings of today remain as trivial afterthoughts. In most instances, their applications tend to be as misleading as they are nefarious.

To open up another flood gate is to revise the “natural born citizen” mandate to the every day stamp of “citizen.” The rudiment of this “natural” distinction comes from our Forefather’s ambition to exact the highest degree of allegiance to the United States of America. Its modern day exception has already proven its value. Must we replace our highest standards with this proven muddle of commonplace?

The Federal Election Commission, or whatever responsible agency, has gone AWOL with regards to Obama’s legitimacy. Today, while the facts amass against his being even an American citizen, our media shuns all inquires with a dismissive and discrediting style. In effect, the disservice from our informational outlets equates with the dereliction from that night in Benghazi.

In addition to these modern day interpreters, it’s also noteworthy that one major political brand has adopted so much of the communist playbook. In conjunction, it is equally disheartening to watch as fellow Americans blatantly and defiantly support a “socialist” candidate. Makes one wonder about our military efforts and all who sacrificed against that “Red Menace.” For this turnaround to be so swift, it’s difficult not to recognize the imprint of a public school education; which if truth be known, had long since given way to and adopted that brand of communal thought.

One point arising out of all this diversity is how valid can today’s Constitutional interpretations be when it is obvious that standards, even allegiance has swayed so far left? Conversely, one should strive for yesteryear, when at least order and common sense prevailed. But then again, the lure of socialism defies such logical reminiscing.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com